Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds something annotations can't: that the response contains per-task status, an overall progress figure, and a recommended next task. It still says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result size, so it earns a solid but not rich 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with no padding, and the useful part (status, progress, next task) comes after the short framing metaphor. Only slight waste in "Mission control for your blueprint."

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words sketching the return payload, which is the right instinct. However, for a listing tool it omits ordering, whether all tasks are always returned, and pagination behavior, leaving an agent unsure what to expect from a large blueprint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (instance_id, passport_token) carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning — no mention of what an instance_id refers to in the blueprint context or when the passport token fallback is acceptable. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (blueprint tasks) and what the caller gets back — statuses, progress, and next task — which aligns with the "List blueprint tasks" title. But the verb is buried under the "Mission control" metaphor, and nothing explicitly separates it from siblings like blueprint_update_task, blueprint_put_stage, or roadmap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other blueprint_* tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g., needing an instance id from buy or list_utilities, which only appears in the schema). Usage is only implied by the word "mission control."

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.